That is not a recent soundbite, nor is it a remark made in response to the HHS mandate. It is from the 1995 book, The Church and the Culture War
(Ignatius Press), written by the now-retired Dr. Joyce Little, who
taught for many years at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. The
book is now out of print (with a few used copies available
on amazon.com) and some of its examples and references are, not
surprisingly, a bit dated. But it is a timely book, with a nearly
endless stream of insights into the theological confusion and cultural
wars of the past several decades. It is one of my favorite Ignatius
And it occurred to me, as I was recently re-reading passages in the
book (one of which is below), that Dr. Little's book could well be the
middle volume of a relatively short, highly engaging Ignatius Press
trilogy that, once read, will provide people with an education both wide
and deep about The Pill, the sexual revolution, and the resulting
crises upon us today.
The first book of that trilogy is of The Right to Privacy by Janet Smith, which
a critical look at the meaning of the “right to privacy” that has been
so often employed by the Supreme Court in recent times to justify the
creation of rights not found in the Constitution by any traditional
method of interpreting a legal document. Smith shows how these
inventions have led to the legal protection of abortion, assisted
suicide, homosexual acts, and more.
You can get a good sense of Smith's approach in this excerpt from my 2009 Ignatius Insight interview with her about the book:
Ignatius Insight: If Roe v. Wade was the poster child (no pun intended) for the "right to privacy," what was Griswold v. Connecticut? Why was that 1965 decision so significant?
Janet E. Smith: I suppose Griswold v. Connecticut
was its grand debut. In that decision the courts attempted to find some
basis on which they could overturn laws against the sale, distribution
and use of contraception. For nearly a century many states and the
federal government had had laws against contraception. Planned
Parenthood assiduously challenged those laws but they were repeatedly
affirmed by legislatures and courts.
In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut,
the Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the sale,
distribution and use of contraceptivesby married couples. As is well
known, there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution nor were the
justices clear on which amendment implied a "right to privacy" that
would guarantee access to contraception. A short two years later the
court expanded that right to the use of contraceptives by the unmarried.
In 1973, the court found that the right to privacy extended to the
right to have an abortion. There, too, laws of all fifty states were
overturned by the votes of a few justices.
The right to privacy
has become a very elastic right; it has been used to legalize
contraception, abortion, assisted suicide and homosexual acts. Virtually
no one can give a coherent explanation of what this right is and what
it legitimately protects. It has become a wild card that permits the
courts to advance a very liberal not to say libertine agenda, often
overriding the decisions of state legislatures and courts.
While Smith's book presents the history and legal philosophies at
work, Little's book dives, with real profundity and even elegance, into
the theological and cultural roots of the culture of death, drawing upon
Scripture, natural law, Humanae Vitae, the writings of Bl. John Paul II, Chesterton, Guardini, and many others.
The third book of this trilogy is the just published Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution
by Mary Eberstadt, which is a combination of cultural critique,
sociological exposition, and disaster site investigation. Eberstadt
opens her excellent book with this:
Time magazine and Francis Fukuyama, Raquel Welch and a series of popes, some of the world's leading scientists, and many
other unlikely allies all agree: No single event since Eve took the
apple has been as consequential for relations between the sexes as
the arrival of modern contraception. Moreover, there is good reason
for their agreement. By rendering fertile women infertile with
nearly 100 percent accuracy, the Pill and related devices have
transformed the lives and families of the great majority of people
born after their invention. Modern contraception is not only a fact
of our time; it may even be the central fact, in the sense that it
is hard to think of any other whose demographic, social, behavioral,
and personal fallout has been as profound.
Read the entire Introduction.
All three of these books, might I note, are written by very
intelligent, well-educated, and erudite women. This trilogy could not
be construed (at least, ahem, not by reasonable people) as part of a
mythical male-operated attack on women and "women's rights", a mythology
that Eberstadt dismissed so well in this recent Wall Street Journal essay.
Which brings me to the excerpt from Little's book. Personally, I am
tiring of hearingfrom Catholics and othersthat the HHS mandate
situation "has nothing to do with contraception" but is "all about
religious freedom". I understand what is being said, but I think it is
short sighted and ultimately incorrect. Yes, the immediate problem,
especially within the realm of political rights and proper religious
autonomy, is about religious freedom. But, but, butthe deeper, darker,
and more difficult problem (in part, as it is not so immediate or
obvious) is the contraceptive mentality addressed so well by Smith,
Little, and Eberstadt. And that problem is going to require a moral
awakening, much soul searching, and some stepping up to the hard plate
of reality on the part of, first, Christians but also of other people of
good will who seriously wonder, "What went wrong?"
A CULTURE OF LIFE OR DEATH? by Dr. Joyce Little, from The Church and the Culture War (Ignatius Press):
The watershed issue of our society today is abortion, for whether or
not we accept it tells us whether or not we are prepared to accept death
itself as a tool of social policy and as a means of solving social
problems. Accused of being obsessed by the issue of abortion, Pope John
Paul II recently responded:
... I categorically reject every accusation or suspicion concerning the Pope's alleged 'obsession' with this issue. We are dealing with a problem of tremendous importance, in which all of us must show the utmost responsibility and vigilance. We cannot afford forms of permissiveness
that would lead directly to the trampling of human rights, and also to
the complete destruction of values which are fundamental not only for
the lives of individuals and families but for society itself. Isn't
there a sad truth in the powerful expression culture of death? 
When the freedom of some human beings is upheld by bringing about the
deliberate death of other, innocent human beings, freedom itself
becomes·simply another form of tyranny.
Abortion gives the lie
to the notion that freedom can be the right to do anything we wish as
long as we don't hurt anybody else. The lie resides and always has
resided in the fact that those who claim the right to do as they wish
also reserve for themselves the right to define what hurts others. Those
who claim the freedom to abort also claim the right to define out of
existence those whom they abort and thus deny that anyone has been hurt.
In the movie Gettysburg,
one of the soldiers fighting for the South asks a northern officer why
those in the North cannot just live and let live. A lot of fuss would be
avoided, he says, if only the two sides could simply agree to disagree.
The problem, of course, is that to let live those Southerners who own
slaves is to allow those Southerners to live and to exercise their
freedom at the expense of those slaves. One simply cannot live and let
live when it involves letting some live at the expense of the freedom
and lives of others.
For Catholics, however, the roots of a
culture of death strike deeper than abortion. The watershed issue for
Catholics is not abortion but contraception. For contraception places
before us the central issue of our agewho has dominion over man? Man
himself or God? In Genesis, God gave man dominion over nature (Gen
1:28), but he reserved dominion over man to himself,
as exemplified in his one command to Adam and Eve. Is the human body a
part of that realm over which God gave man dominion, or is the human
body indissociable from the human being over whom God reserved dominion
for himself? That is the unavoidable question raised by contraception.
To divorce sex from procreation is to divorce man from his role as
co-creator with God in order to set man up as the sole lord of even his
own existence. It is to reduce sex to the level of a simple biological
function which, as such, belongs to the nature over which man has
dominion. In doing this, man gives himself the warrant to define for
himself what is good and what is evil in all matters pertaining to
sex-and thus to life and death. To the man, and even more the woman, who
claims contraceptive control over his or her own body, abortion is but
the logical and even necessary corollary to such a notion of control.
Because contraception involves us in a false assertion of freedom
vis-À-vis God, by claiming a prerogative which rightly belongs to God,
and because abortion involves us in a false assertion of freedom
vis-À-vis both God and other human beings, by taking a life which God
has given to another person, women, who are the primary target of those
advocating contraception and abortion, must take the lead in renouncing
the culture of death which such techniques produce. Women must recognize
within themselves that unique capacity for giving life which defined
Eve as "mother of all living" and Mary as Mother of God. A culture of
death can prevail only at the expense of motherhood itself: and women
must work to see that the female capacity to conceive and bear children
is not treated as somehow disordered or flawed.
This means two
things above all else. It means, first, that women must actively resist
that contraceptive mentality which supposes that the chemical
suppression of the capacity of a normally-functioning female body to
conceive a child or the physical disruption by barrier methods of the
marital act itself are good things. It means, second, that women must
actively combat that attitude which suggests that the woman who does
actually conceive a child might be regarded as having contracted a
disease. Thinking of the female body and the marital act as flawed and
therefore in need of a contraceptive "fix" and viewing pregnancy as a
disease in need of the "cure" of abortion are two of the most vicious
aspects of a culture of death. Without these mistaken concepts, no such
culture could ever flourish. If women must take the lead here, this does
not mean that men have no role to play. Indeed, a culture centered on
contraception and abortion works in the final analysis as much against
fatherhood as against motherhood, for it strikes at marriage and the
family precisely because it divorces freedom from love and that
responsibility which is intrinsic to love. As the Pope points out,
"Responsible parenthood is the necessary condition for human love, and
it is also the necessary condition for authentic conjugal love, because
love cannot be irresponsible. Its beauty is the fruit of responsibility.
When love is truly responsible, it is also truly free." 
The only way, in short, to subvert a culture of death is to embrace
freely and joyfully the hierarchy or sacred order of the sacrament of
marriage by which man is able to become the living image of God and thus
sustain within this world the trinitarian order with which God has
invested it and without which there can be only a world of tyranny and a
culture of death. But this means something else of which both Vatican
II and the current Pope have been most insistent. This means the laity
must assume a much greater responsibility for the mission of the Church
in this world. (pp 164-67)
 Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, trans. by Jenny McPhee and Martha McPhee (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), 207-8.
 Ibid, 208.